Littlejohn v. United States of America

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 . It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-captioned caseis SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/26/2013. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Quintin M. Littlejohn,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
United States of America,
)
with all agents in active concert both
)
individually and in their official capacity, )
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00369-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 9], filed on February 13, 2013, recommending that
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-captioned case be summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without service of process. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title
42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter
which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a

recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility
to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

1

part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
No. 9 at 6]. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 11].
Objections to the Report must be specific. Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of
the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Therefore, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the record in this case,
and Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, the court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are non-specific,
unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, or merely restate his claims.
Accordingly, this court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No.
9]. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-captioned case
is SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
April 26, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2